Help us reach our end-of-year support goal!

Your support, financial or otherwise, is what keeps the 'Geek online.
Only
23 days
left to get bonus GeekGold!
- learn more.
"Thrifters BurrEato & TacodeMayo Awesome W&G gals I know RummageORama generosity brings Just a few of my favorite things"
-
(CallieMo)

I would like to see an increase in the Class-Deck-Size for the heroes already released. It would add more variety to the charakterdevelopment. Like a "forsaken lore"-Expansion for IA, which did not introduce new mechanics but just added more of the same.

Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault

The next total solar eclipse holiday in 2017 in the USA.

Also, while there are some "must take" class cards, depending on who the other heroes are, what items the heroes can purchase, what class deck the imperial player is using, and what the campaign is, each hero would gravitate to different class cards. (Or at least they should consider it instead of taking the same 'best' cards every time.)

The class card choice is not done in a vacuum, and even with the same class cards purchased they play differently in different campaigns.

The shop items add a lot variety too.

(It's also not that easy to create abilities that are good and fun, but not too good.)

I do get what you mean, though- it would be really nice to have the option to add more class cards to the Heroes' options, kind of like how early Eldritch Horror expansions added more Ancient One cards to what already existed.

I think how they've done it so far is pretty good. With the number of heroes available (16 after Jabba) there seems to be enough replayability to go around.

Have you played with all the heroes?

It´s not about the variety of the game itself. It´s about the characterdevelopment,the point of the game where you´ve already chosen a character. This is - in my opinion - very important if we once get the chance to get to play a huge campaign =)

I'm on the fence with this. Part of me likes the idea of more to choose from and part of me thinks there's too many cards!

It would be cool if they implemented class cards that would provide a hero with a specialty. Something like the Descent 2nd ed. where you pick a character and then a class deck.

For example, Jyn could have something like a Gunslinger sub-class or Spy sub-class and appropriate abilities in each deck.

I think the issue for me is that it's such a long haul through the core/big box campaigns that it's possible to get bored of the heroes you've selected. This is where the smaller box campaigns really shine as you level quickly.

I'm still working through the core campaign with my group as the Imperials. I think we're 7 missions in and we're all thinking this should have ended already! The heroes are all fairly predictable in their play too as each hero is really a specialist...to a certain degree

I don't want to stray too far from the OP, so I'll make my point. I think shortening campaigns will have the same effect as more cards. The reason I think that'll work is because as was stated earlier, there are 16 heroes to choose from (once Jabba comes out) and I'd rather re-play a 4-5 mission campaign with different hero combos than use the same hero and choose different abilities.

Great thing is, with minimal work, my "solution" can work as opposed to relying on FFG to make more cards and spend our $$$

It would be cool if they implemented class cards that would provide a hero with a specialty. Something like the Descent 2nd ed. where you pick a character and then a class deck.

For example, Jyn could have something like a Gunslinger sub-class or Spy sub-class and appropriate abilities in each deck.

That would be a great idea. I just feel the desire, that IA becomes a little more rpgish. Maybe some more Itemslots can reach this goal too, or increasing some stats...dont know exactly, but i like improving the character in a game in an individual way =) Class Deck - Variety would be one way to fulfill that

Regarding the concerns about "too many cards"- I don't think we need a ton of cards for each character. I think we have plents 1XP and 2XP cards- let's see some new 4XP ones, though, maybe even some 5XP ones. That way, we're more likely to really get some mileage as far as variety goes.

To me developing a new class deck for an existing hero would require pretty much the same amount of work as just developing a new hero. It would also be a little more finicky than just developing someone from the ground up since you already have some fixed stats that you couldn't tweak for balance.

Given the choice between FFG making an extra class deck for say Fenn and an entirely new hero, I'm going to pick the entirely new hero.

Problem is that you wont be able to pick a new hero in a running campaign, at least its not meamt to be. If they just releasing new heroes, there will be depth at the characterchoice for a few seconds but no more depth in the development of the chosen Charakter

To me developing a new class deck for an existing hero would require pretty much the same amount of work as just developing a new hero. It would also be a little more finicky than just developing someone from the ground up since you already have some fixed stats that you couldn't tweak for balance.

Given the choice between FFG making an extra class deck for say Fenn and an entirely new hero, I'm going to pick the entirely new hero.

For a whole new deck, maybe roughly. For a few new cards, I'd say that's not accurate.

I'd argue that as much as I want as much variety in heroes as possible, I'd also like for my individual heroes to have depth. While we have a huge variety in items available to heroes for this, you're typically going to see each hero have a roughly identical build as far as skills go by the end of each campaign. A few high cost XP cards would drastically change that.

Each hero has 20XP of cards available, and in a full campaign they tend to earn about half that - half unused per campaign. Six heroes in the base game alone - a third unused per campaign. Number of different combinations is pretty large, especially considering how much isn't used in a campaign. So maybe the lack of variety is more because people in your group keep picking the same heroes and giving them the same upgrades.

To me developing a new class deck for an existing hero would require pretty much the same amount of work as just developing a new hero. It would also be a little more finicky than just developing someone from the ground up since you already have some fixed stats that you couldn't tweak for balance.

Given the choice between FFG making an extra class deck for say Fenn and an entirely new hero, I'm going to pick the entirely new hero.

For a whole new deck, maybe roughly. For a few new cards, I'd say that's not accurate.

I'd argue that as much as I want as much variety in heroes as possible, I'd also like for my individual heroes to have depth. While we have a huge variety in items available to heroes for this, you're typically going to see each hero have a roughly identical build as far as skills go by the end of each campaign. A few high cost XP cards would drastically change that.

Hmm, in my experience each hero has two distinct builds, with some minor customisation on top of that. I've certainly never seen anyone grab both 4xp cards so there is already an obvious choice there. Adding a third choice wouldn't make a huge difference.

However it seems you're really advocating for a more persistent campaign that goes beyond what we currently have, e.g. being able to link together multiple campaigns as one ongoing story (as you say, more RPGish). And based on that concept, sure, they could release additional content ('Epic' levels?) for heroes. However, at the same time, I'm not convinced the game can really be played that way with the current system.

To me developing a new class deck for an existing hero would require pretty much the same amount of work as just developing a new hero. It would also be a little more finicky than just developing someone from the ground up since you already have some fixed stats that you couldn't tweak for balance.

Given the choice between FFG making an extra class deck for say Fenn and an entirely new hero, I'm going to pick the entirely new hero.

For a whole new deck, maybe roughly. For a few new cards, I'd say that's not accurate.

I'd argue that as much as I want as much variety in heroes as possible, I'd also like for my individual heroes to have depth. While we have a huge variety in items available to heroes for this, you're typically going to see each hero have a roughly identical build as far as skills go by the end of each campaign. A few high cost XP cards would drastically change that.

The reason you have the same builds every game is because getting balance down is difficult. There's a few cards that are better than the others so you gravitate towards them. Gideon's Hammer and Anvil rarely gets bought because Masterstroke is so much better. Diala's support build is wonderful so people don't pick up the damage stuff very much. If you want damage, you're better off picking a different character.

Add in more cards and they'll either become the second rate cards or relegate the other cards to second rate.

To me developing a new class deck for an existing hero would require pretty much the same amount of work as just developing a new hero. It would also be a little more finicky than just developing someone from the ground up since you already have some fixed stats that you couldn't tweak for balance.

Given the choice between FFG making an extra class deck for say Fenn and an entirely new hero, I'm going to pick the entirely new hero.

For a whole new deck, maybe roughly. For a few new cards, I'd say that's not accurate.

I'd argue that as much as I want as much variety in heroes as possible, I'd also like for my individual heroes to have depth. While we have a huge variety in items available to heroes for this, you're typically going to see each hero have a roughly identical build as far as skills go by the end of each campaign. A few high cost XP cards would drastically change that.

The reason you have the same builds every game is because getting balance down is difficult. There's a few cards that are better than the others so you gravitate towards them. Gideon's Hammer and Anvil rarely gets bought because Masterstroke is so much better. Diala's support build is wonderful so people don't pick up the damage stuff very much. If you want damage, you're better off picking a different character.

Add in more cards and they'll either become the second rate cards or relegate the other cards to second rate.

See, I don't think that's fair to say. Sure, it's easy to fall into the trap of dominant strategy, but it's possible to avoid. It's up to FFG to avoid that.

It's a "trap" if you select abilities without considering who the other heroes are and what the imperial class deck is and what items and class cards have been purchased at that point.

It's upto FFG only to create useful abilities with appropriate XP costs. It's upto the players to choose which class cards to purchase.

Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there are useful and appropriate cards dependent on certain configurations, then we're not likely to see s "dominant strategy" form. If this could be done, then we could presumably have even more variety without having players getting the same build because of holding out for the best cards, as previously speculated.